I think there would be a problem with property invalidation at least. A
property (like layoutBounds or any property set by CSS) would change on
get() although there was no invalidation notification (unless we'd
invalidate all affected properties on CSS/layout change - but most of
them would NOT change probably).
This would also affect bindings. Unless we'd invalidate everything that
might be affected, the bindings would not trigger the CSS/layout pass
when needed.
-Martin
On 07/08/2013 07:01 PM, Richard Bair wrote:
So this was also my first desire. I wanted to actually make it so that nobody
would ever have to invoke a CSS pass manually, but instead we would just do it
lazily on first request as needed. If this is possible then we can only think
of the layout problem in isolation. In this case, just reusing the existing
layout() method seems like the right thing to do.
I can't remember on this Monday morning why I decided it wasn't possible to
handle CSS lazily in this manner. But it is *really* what I want to do if it is
possible. I'm sure there are lots of possibilities for strange performance
issues with this approach when you bind certain properties.
Richard
On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:52 AM, David Grieve <david.gri...@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm wondering why this "validate" can't just be implicit in any call that uses
or returns layout bounds. Surely we can tell from the dirty bits whether or not something
needs layout and/or css.
On Jul 8, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Richard Bair <richard.b...@oracle.com> wrote:
OK, just throwing something wild out there. Right now we have a layout pass and a css
pass. Can they be combined? Can we combine them just into something that happens during
layout? And can the existing "layout()" method be the thing that kicks it all
off?
Wild and crazy but just throwing it out there (personally I'm uncomfortable
conflating CSS and layout as I believe there will be use cases to do one and
not the other at times).
Richard
On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Scott Palmer <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since CSS is implicitly tied to layout, validateLayout() seems to be enough.
I don't like "verify" or "check" - To me, these imply a method that is
doing checks only and not changing state. A "verify" method would be
something that returns a boolean or throws an exception.
Scott
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Ali Ebrahimi <ali.ebrahimi1...@gmail.com>wrote:
just my suggestions:
validation is a side effect free concept. but your validate contains css &
layout processing for Node, so validate is very poor name in this case.
May be better use computeBounds instead.
But alternates for validate( if method is a side effect free):
verify()
verfifyNode()
verifyBounds()
checkNode()
checkBounds()
best Regards
Ali Ebrahimi
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Martin Sladecek
<martin.slade...@oracle.com>wrote:
The plan is to have a final validate() method.
Anyway, does anybody have a better suggestion? The validate should do
both
CSS and layout and I would like to avoid method name that's too
descriptive
(like validateLayoutAndCSS()) if possible.
I think the most important thing about the method is that it validates
the
bounds/metrics of the Node, so maybe validateBounds() ?
-Martin
On 07/08/2013 01:52 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
+1
The validate()/isValid() in AWT/Swing are often overridden by user apps
for tasks that have nothing to do with the layout. And this causes a
lot of
problems.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 07/08/13 15:20, Pavel Safrata wrote:
Hello,
one more discussion topic: perhaps the "validate" name is too general?
Maybe we can come up with more descriptive name? There are all kinds of
nodes and sometimes this name can be misleading (not ringing the layout
bell at all). For example TextField.validate() may look like validating
the input. Also I wouldn't be surprised if users run into problems with
custom nodes having their "validate" methods for different purposes.
Pavel
On 3.7.2013 14:33, Martin Sladecek wrote:
Hi,
JIRA: https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/**browse/RT-31133<
https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-31133>
I propose a single method "public final void validate()" to be added
to Node class. The validate method would ensure that the metrics
(layout bounds) of the Node are valid with regards to the current
scenegraph (CSS & layout).
Together with this change, Parent.layout() will be deprecated.
In my current implementation, validate() method works only if the Node
is in a Scene. To make it work without a Scene, we'd need to do do
some small adjustments to CSS (doesn't work with getScene() == null).
But I'm not sure if such feature would be useful.
Regards,
-Martin
